Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Security and Defence
Issue 23 - Evidence, June 13, 2005
OTTAWA, Monday, June 13, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence met this day at 7 p.m. to examine and report on the national security policy for Canada (Town Hall Meeting).
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call the meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence to order. My name is Colin Kenny. I chair the committee, and before we begin, I would like to introduce members of the committee to you.
On my immediate right is Senator Michael Forrestall. He is the distinguished senator from Nova Scotia. He has served the constituents of Dartmouth for 37 years, first as their member of the House of Commons, then as their senator. While in the House of Commons, he served as the official opposition defence critic from 1966 to 1976. He is also a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
[Translation]
On my extreme right is Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin, who is from Quebec. He is a lawyer and was appointed to the Senate in 1993. He has chaired the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs and is the deputy chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Affairs, Budgets and Administration.
On the international scene, since 1994, he has been one of the delegates from the Parliament of Canada to the NATO parliamentary assembly. He is the vice-chairman of the organization and the general rapporteur of the Science and Technology Commission.
[English]
On my immediate left is Senator Tommy Banks from Alberta. He is the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, which recently released a report entitled, ``The One-Tonne Challenge.'' He is well known to Canadians as a versatile musician and entertainer. He has provided musical direction for the ceremonies at the 1988 Olympic Winter Games. He is an Officer of the Order of Canada, and he has received a Juno award.
Beside him is Senator Joseph Day from New Brunswick. Senator Day is a graduate of the Royal Military College, RMC, and he is a lawyer. He is deputy chairman of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and of the National Finance Committee.
We have Senator Atkins from Ontario. Senator Atkins is a former adviser to Robert Stanfield, to Premier Bill Davis and to Brian Mulroney. He has had an extensive career in communications and is also a member of our Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs.
Our committee has been mandated to examine security and defence, and the need for a national security policy. We have introduced and produced the following reports since 2002: Canadian Security and Military Preparedness; Defence of North America: A Canadian Responsibility; Update on Canada's Military Financial Crisis, a View from the Bottom Up; The Myth of Security at Canada's Airports; Canada's Coastlines: The Longest Under-Defended Borders in the World; National Emergencies: Canada's Fragile Front Lines; and, most, recently, Canadian Security Guide Book, 2005 edition.
We are in the midst of a detailed review on Canadian defence policy and have been holding hearings in every province and engaging with Canadians to determine their national interest, what they see as Canada's principal threats and how they would like the government to respond to those threats. Canadians have been very forthright in expressing their views on national security in Canada.
We will continue working on this review throughout the summer to forge a consensus on the type of military Canadians envision in the future.
Before I introduce our moderator, I would like to say this is the eleventh Town Hall Meeting we have held. We have found them to be very constructive. It is not an opportunity for us to give speeches or to answer questions. It is an opportunity for us to hear what Canadians have to say and what sort of defence they would like to have for their country.
I will briefly introduce our moderator, and she will describe the ground rules for the evening. Her name is Lise Hebabi. She is a certified professional facilitator and a change consultant with Intersol Group. Ms. Hebabi has 15 years of experience in management consulting in human resources in government and private sector organizations. She specializes in facilitating conversations that go to real issues. She is fluently bilingual, and we are grateful to have her here to assist us.
Would you take the floor and describe this evening's ground rules, please.
Ms. Lise Hebabi, Moderator: Welcome, everyone, and thank you for attending this evening.
My role as moderator will be to ensure the ground rules are followed. I hope that you will help me to do that.
The ground rules are as follows: There are two microphones here in the hall at the front. If you wish to make a comment, line up at one of them — whichever seems to have the shortest lineup would be my recommendation.
As the senator said, you will not be asking questions. You will be making a presentation that is not to exceed three minutes. A clock will show you your remaining time here on the table.
When the red light goes on, your time is up. If you have not finished speaking at that point, I unfortunately will have to cut you off. I hope you will not take it personally, but I am under strict orders.
One member of the committee may then ask you a question to clarify your comments. You will then have up to a minute and a half to respond.
[Translation]
The committee asks that speakers identify themselves, so that we may produce detailed minutes of tonight's meeting. We will be in touch with you later if necessary. As these are parliamentary proceedings, you will certainly understand the importance of producing precise minutes. When you arrived for the meeting, you were given a registration card. If you want to speak we ask that you give this card to the clerk as you arrive at the microphone. If you did not receive a card, you may get one at the back of the room. You can make your presentation in the official language of your choice. Statements will be interpreted into both official languages. You may request earphones at the registration office if you do not already have some. I thank you in advance for the assistance you will be giving me in my role as moderator.
[English]
The Chairman: The floor is now open, and we would welcome people to come to either microphone number one or microphone number two.
We will start with microphone number one, sir. If we could have your name, and then would you make a statement, please.
Capt (Ret'd) John Dewar, National Maritime Affairs Committee, Navy League of Canada, as an individual: I am a retired naval captain, and I will be privileged to once again address this committee on behalf of the Navy League of Canada.
Although international deployment often garners the spotlight, I would like to examine the usually unsung but essential workaday role the navy performs in supporting domestic prosperity and security. Reference to a map of the world will clearly demonstrate Canada's dependence on the seas for safety and wealth, but awareness of this fact penetrates to the heartland only about as far as an onshore breeze can carry the salt spray.
Forty per cent of all employment is based upon international trade. The vast majority of non-U.S. international trade moves by sea. The port of Vancouver alone handles more than 1.6 million containers annually, and the secure management of that maritime trade governs the movement of goods and people across the land border, valued at more than $500 billion annually.
Every hour's delay at that border caused by uncertainty ties up millions of dollars affecting both employment and the cost of living in Canada.
To keep our land border operating smoothly, it is essential that we demonstrate effective control over the goods and people that come to Canada by sea.
Like justice, maritime security must be seen to be done. Perception is reality. Perception is based upon the visible and tangible measures taken to exercise control over all aspects of marine transportation.
We are encouraged by the Marine Transportation Security Act, the establishment of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada with authority over national security issues, and the coordinating functions of the interdepartmental Maritime Security Working Group are also encouraging.
However, legislation and organization are only as efficacious as the tools provided for effective enforcement. The new maritime security operation centres, when fully operational, will be a key component of this activity, but they are not yet functional.
The Maritime Information Management and Data Exchange project, intended to expedite exchange of interdepartmental marine security information, is falling behind its intended schedule.
High frequency surface radar is urgently needed to monitor coastal activity as a complement to the new 96-hour reporting requirements.
The navy needs the people and money to implement these tools as quickly as possible.
I have addressed this committee before about the types of ships that the navy might need for domestic maritime security, but I would like to add there is a legitimate demand in all the government fleets to keep the remaining elements of the Canadian ship-building industry continuously employed. This would require a comprehensive and coherent long-term ship-building strategy, but it would pay dividends on the security front and would permit, through economies of scale, increased efficiency and competitiveness for Canadian yards in the global shipbuilding sector.
As I said at the beginning, the navy plays a key role in underpinning marine security that contributes to the prosperity of every Canadian, and we in the Navy League of Canada call upon the members of this committee to do their utmost to ensure that the navy has the right tools to do the job.
Ms. Hebabi: Perfect timing. Thank you.
Senator Atkins: Thank you for coming again to our committee and making your presentation. My only question at the moment is, what legislation do you think should be implemented to assist in the safety and security of our coasts?
Mr. Dewar: I think the biggest challenge right now, senator, is perhaps one of the impediments to the Maritime Information Management Data Exchange, MIMDEX, project, and that has a lot to do with the ability of government departments to share information because of privacy and charter issues. In many ways, the legislative challenges are much more demanding than the technical challenges to be able to facilitate that exchange of information. My thought is that probably 95 per cent of it can be done without touching the parts that we could put in the all-too-difficult column initially, but it would go a long way to making interdepartmental cooperation and contribution to maritime security more effective.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, sir.
Microphone number 2, if we could have your name, please.
Mr. David Langlois, as an individual: Good evening. I am the secretary-treasurer of Unmanned Vehicle Systems Canada, a not-for-profit organization acting as the national voice of unmanned systems in Canada. Tonight I wish to speak to the subject of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, and the defence and maintenance of Canada's sovereignty in the north.
Unmanned aerial vehicles will greatly enhance our ability to monitor and keep watch on an area which most of us have no first-hand familiarity with. The North represents one third of Canada's land mass, more than three million square kilometres. In the far north, in the territory of Nunavut, there are about 29,000 folk. That is one person for every 70 square kilometres — one person. That is the same as if the city of Ottawa had four people living in the entire city.
Imagine that Senator Kenny lives in Cumberland in the east end of town, Senator Atkins lives in Carp in the west end, and Senator Banks lives in Manotick in the south. The north is vast. The distance from Grise Fjord to Comox, Vancouver Island, which is where the current Aurora surveillance units are located, is 3,500 kilometres.
Senator Kenny, you get a call from your neighbour, who lives in Hawkesbury and has just seen something where nothing should be. You call Senator Banks and Senator Atkins. Both say they will come immediately — by snowmobile. You call the Armed Forces, and they tell you they will fly up immediately and investigate by Aurora. What do you think your chances of finding something are? How long does it take to fly from Vancouver to Grise Fjord by Aurora? How long does it take to drive by snowmobile from Carp to Cumberland?
I believe that if you have access in Cumberland to an appropriate unmanned aerial vehicle with appropriate sensing equipment, linked by broadband communications to an appropriate ground station, your chances of detecting the persons or things that made that noise would be increased manyfold.
Moreover, a fleet of 40 unmanned aerial vehicles located in 20 communities across Canada's North, prepared and maintained by Aboriginals, would offer more than 1,000 times the level of surveillance and incursion detection than is the current capability of our Armed Forces today, and at annual cost of less than 0.01 per cent of the entire budget of the Canadian Forces. Is $15 million annually too much to enhance Canada's sovereignty over the North?
By the way, the same UAV could also act as a first responder in a search and rescue mission and be there six to eight hours ahead of any search and rescue force from Winnipeg.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: We thank you, Mr. Langlois, for having agreed to be here tonight.
[English]
I too share your concern about the North. There are two important principles we must keep in mind when talking about the North: protection and sovereignty.
I would like to you expand a little bit more. I assume you are talking about UAVs as part of a network of other devices and people up north. I want you to expand on that a bit more.
Mr. Langlois: Yes. The way we see it is that UAVs have a limited role, but they play a very particular limited role. They are good at doing what we call the dull, dirty and dangerous.
You can send one up for 20 hours and fly it around. A person, a pilot, a navigator, does not have to be on board. If you use the Rangers and expanded the role of the Rangers from the current 100 hours a year to give them full-time jobs, if you put a fleet of 40 of them up there in 20 communities across the North, strategically located, a particular UAV could fly probably 200 nautical miles from its launch base. If you link them together with their data gathering and sensing capabilities, you would have a potent force that would not only protect but also be able to, in certain UAVs, carry out search and rescue missions. Some of them can carry up to 600 pounds, so you would be able to put on first responder, telehealth and medical equipment kits, and have those dropped by the UAV while it was also doing searching missions.
The Chairman: That will conclude it for tonight.
Mr. Cliff Chadderton, National Council of Veterans Associations, as an individual: I am the chairman of a 52-member umbrella group of veterans. I have been in this role for 40 years. I have been on trips with many of you, and I know quite a bit about what you do. I hope you know a bit about what I do.
I have prepared a submission this evening and would ask the senators to take it with them. It does — in some detail, but not too much — give some background as to the views that I would like to put forward.
The problem that I have seen in these 40 years, and it is simply getting worse, is that we are, in Canada, dependent upon some excellent tradesmen, soldiers, airmen, navy personnel and merchant seamen. I have had the occasion to travel, as some of you senators have, with some of these people, and I need not spell out in detail the kind of people they are. However, the gist of my submission tonight is that if we can expect that our peacekeepers will do what we expect of them, we in turn as Canadians have to take a hard look at some of the conditions. First, there is always the pay and allowances. Second, there is the question of what happens to dependents. I served all the way through in World War II. My wife was in Winnipeg. I was overseas. I worried about her. I wrote to her religiously, but she was on her own. Those days are gone forever.
If we look at the dependents of the servicemen, whether they are in Somaliland, Rwanda, flying the skies or plying their trade at sea, they must think in terms of what their wives and children are doing. Believe me, it is a much different world than for those who served five years in World War II.
Moderator: I will cut you off there.
Mr. Chadderton: Thank you. You have my submission.
Senator Day: Mr. Chadderton, it is good to see you today. I have had the privilege of travelling with you on a number of occasions. As you know, the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs is a subcommittee of this committee, and a good number of individuals here serve on that subcommittee, as our chair indicated.
We know the wonderful leadership and advocacy that you have shown for veterans and we appreciate your submission. I am tempted to ask you to elaborate on the one point, but you were just about to talk about a few other points on your submission. I would like to give you the opportunity to spend a minute or two elaborating on your submission.
Mr. Chadderton: Yes, with the permission of the chair, the points include pain allowances and how we look after the dependents. We need to address the kind of military hardware we have. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize that hardware is not up to par. We must look at expenditures. My submission suggests that there be dollar limits; that we just cannot go hog wild, but certainly the kind of security that Canadians are looking for will never be bought with the dollars that are out there.
With regard to comparisons, this is something that, as a former serviceman, hurts me deeply. When I realize what we did in World War II, and when I look at what we expect the peacekeepers to do today, given a consistent dollar rate, they are way behind.
Third and last, we must compare our servicemen with the servicemen who are serving from Third World countries. It hurts me to say it, but I have been there, I have seen it, I have done it and I have spoken to them. There is no way that we are considered top peacekeepers.
Senator Day: Thank you, Mr. Chadderton. We look forward to your report.
The Chairman: Microphone number 2, would you identify yourself please, sir?
Mr. Alain Pellerin, Executive Director, Conference of Defence Associations, Canadian Defence Industries Association, as an individual: Honourable senators, CDA has submitted five papers already to the Senate and those were published in this publication of the CDA Institute called, ``Understanding the Crisis in Defence,'' and ``Security and Defence.'' Those are available for those who would like to get copies. Therefore, I will limit my comments and you will also limit my comments, I am sure.
CDA believes that in the administration of defence policy, Canada's biggest vulnerability is poor time appreciation when it comes to military capability. Also, in the last 75 years, Canadians and their leadership have had difficulty discerning the future and in predicting the size and composition of its military forces. This tendency to get it wrong underscores the need to maintain a balanced military capability over its five capability components: Navy, army, air, joint forces and special forces.
The Defence Policy Statement, DPS, 2005, directs Canada towards medium weight and enhanced special forces, and does not address Canada's need to maintain more capable sea, land and air platforms.
Most Canadians do not appreciate — I am sure this committee does appreciate, but most Canadians do not — that DPS 2005, the transformation that is required to medium weight force, strategically deployable forces, is unlikely to be achieved prior to 2020. Should it be proven in 2020 that medium weight forces are inappropriate, the long march back to heavier capabilities would take another 15 years.
Canada is betting that in the next 30 to 40 years the current geopolitical situation initiated by the end of the Cold War will continue. History does not allow such long periods of geopolitical sameness. Canada must maintain balanced general-purpose capabilities across the spectrum of conflict. This includes maintaining — albeit in much reduced numbers — the essential, heavier military capabilities of armour, aircraft, fighter aircraft, destroyers and also the airlift capabilities that are somewhat depleted now, as honourable senators know.
There is a long time lag for capital equipment acquisition, which is a major impediment to the implementation of defence policy, and much of the policy to acquire a major piece of equipment is outside the purview of the defence department. That is an area where the government must be involved to ensure that the long lag time of some 15, 20 or 30 years in the case of the Sea King Helicopter replacement does not happen. Otherwise, the defence White Paper will be a vision and not a policy document.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you for being with us tonight, and for the four or five papers that you have submitted. That is always useful; irrespective of what some people may think, we find wisdom in experience.
I wanted to ask you four or five questions, but I am limited to one. You express a concern about how long it will take us to get to a medium weight capacity capability. How many men and women will it take to sustain a front-end, sharp-point-of-the-pencil force of let us say 75,000 men and women combat-trained in a balanced way? How many people would we need, in your judgment, to support that force?
Mr. Pellerin: Are you talking about an overall force of 75,000 or sharp-end?
Senator Forrestall: Sharp-end is 75,000. How many civilians do we need? What does headquarters have to look like and so on?
Mr. Pellerin: Do we have the whole evening?
As far as we are concerned, we looked at the requirements for a force of 75,000. If you want a sharp-end force of 75,000, you are probably looking at an overall force of what we used to have in the late 1960s, of 120,000, probably. In the late 1980s, there was a component of some 40,000 civilians at the Department of National Defence. They are now down to about 20,000. If you have a force of 120,000, you would need probably a total of 40,000 civilians to support that. That is only a guesstimate. We have not done a detailed study on that. We could have a look at that.
Senator Forrestall: Would you crunch some numbers and let us know?
Mr. Pellerin: Numbers would involve also the resources, and the 1 per cent of GDP would not allow you even to start the recruiting.
The Chairman: Microphone number 1, could you identify yourself, please, sir?
Mr. Sean Beingessner, as an individual: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. I am interested in the question to the extent that the military plays a role in the economic development in the country. I understand the strong political desire for such a role, but I feel one should question the efficiency of the Canadian defence spending in these roles, in particular, administrative spending and what could be called industrial subsidies.
My father served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, RCAF, in the Second World War and then attended university courtesy of the federal government, along with many other veterans. My father would never have attended university except for his time in the RCAF during the war. The benefit to my father and his family cannot be underestimated. Therefore, I believe that government spending can have a beneficial effect on Canadian opportunities and standards of living. However, because a thing was useful 60 years ago does not make it useful, or not useful, today. It was true 60 years ago and remains true today that a dollar can buy more at some times than at other times.
It seems to be the season for the media to criticize waste in government spending, but the media is not alone. The Conference of Defence Associations, CDA, has a March 2005 paper, ``Understanding the Crisis in Canadian Security and Defence.'' Colonel Howard Marsh painted a dire picture of the usefulness of DND spending in this paper. His tone of writing may not be balanced. Statements such as from page 29, ``The military goals to have the government rob the department of its resources,'' might sound extreme in the use of the word ``rob.'' They might reveal more passion than reason. They are not my opinions, but I have similar concerns. I do not support the numbers in the paper, but I do not doubt them, either.
Nonetheless, in 2005, at the end of the age of industrial warfare, I think it is fair to ask the question: Is the military the right vehicle to drive the Canadian economy and Canadian standards of living? Is there a role for the government, Parliament or DND, in trying to quantify this role, instead of waving hands in the air and speculating? Obviously, it is useful to have industrial subsidies. Should we measure this, quantify it and compare it to other countries such as Australia or our smaller European partners?
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your valuable time.
Senator Banks: I will ask you what your advice for policy is in the light of two things. One, present light armoured vehicles, LAVs, which we use in the Canadian Forces, are designed and built in Canada and are widely exported because they are so good and everybody else wants them.
As you heard Mr. Dewar say earlier, when it comes to naval procurement, we ought to do that in such a way as to sustain a viable Canadian shipbuilding industry.
Mr. Beingessner: You have to determine your own priorities.
Senator Banks: If we could buy more ships for the same amount of money in, say, Hong Kong or Finland than we could by rejuvenating a moribund Canadian ship building industry on that scale, should we do that?
Mr. Beingessner: Here is what I would consider a more appropriate question: Should we buy them in Australia or Poland? In other words, can we arrange with our allies to come to some sort of an agreement where our industry becomes more efficient as their industry becomes more efficient?
In the future, you will face a growing Chinese and Indian economy where their standard of living and their competence will raise to our level. We will be faced with blocked spending. They will form two blocks and the Americans will form a block. The French and British still try to do things on their own.
However, we have many allies who have exactly the same problem we have: They want jobs for their citizens, and they want as much bang for the buck as they can get. We should stop worrying about whether it is in Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario and start thinking, we build these vehicles well. Maybe Poland should build the ship and we should put the electronics on the ship that Poland builds.
Instead of worrying so much about Halifax, Montreal and Toronto, can we appreciate that we have many allies with exactly our problem? They want jobs in their country, and they want bang for their military buck. Should we look outside the country to answer your question? I do not know the capabilities of Poland, Bulgaria, Spain or Italy in terms of various things, but they have our problems.
Senator Banks: It happens that most of us agree with you.
Mr Bruce Poulin, Dominon Command of the Royal Canadian Legion, as an individual: I am a spokesperson for the Royal Canadian Legion, and I am here to share the remarks of Lieutenant-General Lou Cuppens who unfortunately could not appear tonight. He is chairman of the legion defence committee. If you have any questions or criticisms, I would be happy to pass them along to him.
We were given three questions to try and address in three minutes. I will give a cursory outline as to what our positions are. We were asked to talk about vulnerabilities, missed opportunities and the impact the Canadian Forces has on the legion.
With respect to vulnerabilities, it remains the legion's position, which has remained unchanged since its creation in 1926, that security remains a fundamental responsibility of the federal government. Whether we want to talk about provincial jurisdictions or municipal governments, the point is that federal responsibility with regard to national defence cannot be taken lightly. We wish to ensure that is never forgotten.
With respect to missed opportunities, I am sure you are all aware that we take three issues particularly to heart with respect to missed opportunities: We want to ensure that our troops are properly equipped, trained and compensated.
If we had to single out one particular thing that has not been mentioned so far this evening, it is with respect to the reserves. We believe there is a missed opportunity with respect to the reserves. We are one of the few militaries in the world that has a larger regular force than reserve force. For example, in 1980, it would take a recruit one month to be enrolled. In 2004, it takes eight months to be enrolled. There are things that can be done to alleviate that situation.
The final question is with regard to the impact the Canadian Forces has on the legion. The Royal Canadian Legion is a self-funded, apolitical and non-partisan organization of more than 400,000 members founded by veterans for veterans. Therefore, it goes without saying that the concerns of our Canadian servicemen and servicewomen are a concern of the Royal Canadian Legion. What affects our servicemen affects the legion. When you take a decision and invoke policies, then it obviously has a direct impact on the legion. We would always like to be involved in those matters.
Senator Atkins: You will not get too many arguments from this panel on the areas that you touched on.
Do you think our veterans receive the appropriate benefits they deserve after serving in the military?
Mr. Poulin: We have come a long way in the last few years. When I was in the forces, we used to joke about doing more with less, and then we reached a point where we were doing more with nothing.
Now, we think we have progressed to infusing funds and increasing the size of the forces. If anything this year, we have seen progress in that area. We are strongly encouraged, but I think we have adopted a policy of cautious optimism. We are on the right track, but we want to make sure that what we have seen in the past is not repeated.
Senator Atkins: Was the legion encouraged by the new veterans' charter?
Mr. Poulin: Absolutely, sir.
Senator Atkins: Is the legion having difficulty recruiting new membership?
Mr. Poulin: That is not an issue because we have a broad mandate in terms of who can become a member. Regular forces have a regular stature in terms of voting capabilities. However, other people, whether it is family, relatives, or friends of the legion, may also be a part of it. Within that scheme of things, when I talk about 400,000, it is not strictly military or veterans. We are all over this country.
Mr. Bruce Campbell, Executive Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, as an individual: I am not an expert in defence policy, so I make this intervention as a general policy analyst, observer and citizen. I will simply enumerate a number of principles that I think should guide your deliberations.
First, defence policies should serve three basic goals: To protect our citizens, to protect our sovereignty, and to advance our foreign policy goals.
Second, we should cooperate with the United States in the defence of the continent. This cooperation does not mean buying into their definitions of national security threats and responses. We should do it ourselves. This was done in rejecting missile defence, and I am concerned that we are not doing this with respect to the definition and response to terrorism.
Third, protecting our citizens includes the capacity to address national emergencies, disasters, floods, fires and ice storms. This capacity thus should be an important focus of military resources. Sovereignty is currently being challenged in the arctic, and defence resources should be focused there as well.
Fourth, if global human security is the primary foreign policy goal, and I believe it should be, military resources should be directed to this end through peacekeeping and peace building activities. They should not be focused on making Canada an interoperable part of America's global military strategy.
We are now forty-fifth on the list of UN peacekeepers. We responded quickly to Afghanistan and very slowly to Darfur.
Fifth, military personnel should be adequately compensated and equipped for the jobs we ask them to do.
Finally, any increase in military spending in line with the priorities outlined must take place in the context of an overall increase in fiscal capacity. Federal fiscal capacity has been greatly eroded over the last 12 years. You should oppose further tax cuts and push for tax measures to rebuild fiscal capacity; otherwise, you are trading off more money for weapons against less money for more pressing national security priorities such as housing, education, health care and poverty reduction, et cetera. Where possible, new spending should be reallocated from existing resources.
Senator Nolin: You touched on the international responsibility of Canada. From across Canada we have repeatedly heard the concern that Canada has the responsibility to protect. You raised the issue of human security.
I am sure you know that the more we discuss that principle, the more we are faced with problems under international law. One problem is the right of the sovereignty of states.
As a specialist, how do you think we can increase our capacity to protect while taking that principle into account?
Mr. Campbell: I am not an expert in this. My field of expertise is economic policy. These are difficult questions and they will be front and centre in the debates about United Nations reform. Canada has been at the forefront. I have not read the report, although I expect you have, on the responsibility to protect that was initiated and hosted by the Canadian government. At a gut level, I feel that sovereignty is not an absolute, and there are limits. Since the Second World War, we have seen the consequences of not taking a critical perspective on the issues and limits of sovereignty. As a result of the experience that we have lived through in the last 50 years or more, we must move forward and embrace the concept of human security and responsibility to protect, as ultimately superseding sovereignty.
Mr. Richard Cohen, Canadian Defence Industries Association, as an individual: It is rather fortuitous that my intervention follows this discussion on responsibility to protect, because one of the things I wanted to talk to you about is that very concept.
One of the major elements in our defence policy — in our defence posture — is the support or lack of support of public opinion. This is something that you have been aware of and have done good work toward, although perhaps more needs to be done. I believe that we need a change of attitude among Canadians toward the purpose of their armed forces.
I believe that we need to move from peacekeepers to protectors. Peacekeeping, in its traditional sense, is an honourable but outdated concept these days. There are perhaps places where peacekeeping is still relevant, but it is becoming much less so. Protection, on the other hand, is something that we are all aware needs to be tackled.
What kind of protection should the Canadian Forces be doing? The Canadian Forces should be protecting people and groups that are subject to human rights abuses whether within their own countries or in other people's countries, if need be. We need to protect weaker countries that are the subject of aggression by stronger countries, thus violating international law. We need to protect Canadians at home from terrorism or from the effects of man-made or natural disasters. All this would be in support of Canadian values. It would also support Canadian interests, such as the rule of law, international stability and internal peace and prosperity.
Therefore, the armed forces need to be more robust, more resilient and more sustainable. The new defence policy that we seem to be moving toward is a step in the right direction, but the key is that the Canadian people must be ready to support that defence policy. We need to accept that the primary role of the armed forces is to fight. To do that, the armed forces need personnel, equipment and training, but most of all we need a new spirit of robustness to prepare to accept the inevitable casualties in the cause of protecting others, ourselves, our values and, ultimately, our own interests.
Senator Day: Thank you for your well-thought-out comments. You will find much agreement for the points you make.
I would like to focus on the notion of the Canadian Forces as protectors. Is it realistic to think that we can do this alone? Do we go with a coalition of the willing to determine whether we should intervene in a failed or failing state, or do we have to work through the United Nations to help develop a new international policy on this responsibility to protect? Is that realistic, if that is where you think we should go?
Mr. Cohen: That is a good question. It touches on two things. As to whether we can do it alone, the answer is clearly no in most cases. In rare cases, we may be able to. We certainly need to be in a position to lead, if not in the most highly intense interventions, certainly in some of the lower-level interventions. Canada needs that capacity to lead and that means appropriate headquarters, appropriate communications and so on.
With regard to mandates, we saw the failure of the UN in Darfur. I am afraid that will be repeated time and again. The UN is held hostage to the political vagaries of its permanent members, and some members are not always on the side of what we term ``Canadian values.'' A coalition of the willing in some cases is needed to replace the almost holy writ of the UN mandate.
Mr. David O'Blenis, Raytheon Canada Limited, as an individual: Good evening. I want to talk about our relationship with the U.S. and particularly the renewal of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD, agreement. My background is working inside NORAD, and watching it for the last ten years after retirement.
It is unarguable that our relationship with the U.S. is the most important one for my grandkids and yours. I am concerned that the NORAD agreement renewal is not getting the profile it should, that is, we are not using the political capital that we have invested in NORAD. There is some capital there, and the NORAD agreement, per se, is a 20th century arrangement, and we need a 21st century one. It is, however, an excellent platform from which to launch that discussion with the U.S.
As long as we are not stepping outside the normal bounds of the bureaucracies talking, and not being lead aggressively by Canadian political leaders, the risk is that NORAD dies, the relationship is wasted and it becomes much more difficult for us to open the broader discussion with the U.S. from a solid platform.
Twenty-five years ago, we were in the room and at the table with our American counterparts, engaged in planning collective security. Over the last ten years, we have moved from the table to the room. We are currently hanging on the ledge outside the window, and the window is coming down.
The Americans do not need us in NORAD. They are certainly capable.
The traditional two missions, air defence and the Integrated Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment for ballistic missiles, have been missions for 30 years.
The air mission can be done locally, in the U.S., Canada, Alaska, and so on. With respect to the ballistic missile warning mission, the U.S. Northern Command, NORTHCOM, set up their own processors in August 2004. They now get the data before we do. We hand them the data, and they tell us they received better data 60 seconds ago from their new processor.
The Canadian political leadership must be engaged at the highest level to spur this discussion out of the normal bureaucracy. It is already six months behind. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs are the key people that need to step forward and show the Americans that we understand their security concerns. We do not necessarily share all of them, but we are prepared to discuss a new relationship, and to use NORAD as the platform.
Senator Forrestall: We are perplexed with this as well. We share your concerns. We have indicated that there are changing matters that can be considered by NORAD. I use ``NORAD'' in the euphemistic sense of an agreement between our two nations to conduct military matters at the same table in the same room on the basis of consensus.
As we retreat from the traditional role that we expected NORAD to play, what do you see replacing it as the incentive? Can we have a NORAD with respect to the sea element?
Mr. O'Blenis: The informal discussions I have had around this town would suggest a broad consensus across the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of National Defence and other places that the government needs to look at all the aspects of our mutual security interests, including cyber. Instead of ``North American Aerospace Defense,'' the term NORAD has now come to mean North American Defence, or North American Security and Defence.
I would not predict the outcome of the discussions, but we are losing a valuable lever into them, a valuable platform, to launch the discussions. If the Americans go where they seem to be going, which is renew as is, then it is dead. We have lost that political capital. We have wasted it.
The Chairman: I would like to thank Lise Hebabi for assisting us here this evening. I would like to thank all of you for coming.
It is important to us that we hear from the public on what your views are. Tonight this seemed be perhaps a little more consistent a view than we have heard in some cities, but we welcome the views, whatever they are.
For members of the public who are viewing this program, if you have any questions or comments, please visit our website by going to www.sen-sec.ca. We post witness testimony as well as confirmed hearing schedules. Otherwise you may contact the clerk of the committee by calling 1-800-267-7362 for further information for assistance in contacting members of this committee.
The committee adjourned.